T.R.Edward

1

Feminist Research and Paradigm Shift in Anthropology

Author: Terence Rajivan Edward, University of Manchester.

Note on the text: This is a slightly revised version of the paper, because the section following

the definitions in the published version is not entirely clear.

Abstract. In her paper ‘An Awkward Relationship: the Case of Feminism and Anthropology’,

Marilyn Strathern argues that feminist research cannot produce a paradigm shift in social

anthropology. I reconstruct her arguments and evaluate them, revealing that they are

insufficient for ruling out this possibility.

Keywords: Marilyn Strathern, feminist research, social anthropology, paradigm,

isomorphism, the Other.

1. Introduction

Marilyn Strathern is an influential social anthropologist whose works are sometimes

judged to be significant for philosophy (Douglas 1989; Haraway 1994). One of her best

known papers can in fact be straightforwardly classed as philosophy, namely ‘An Awkward

Relationship: the Case of Feminism and Anthropology’. The paper responds to a debate

between two groups of academic feminists. One group would like feminist research to bring

about a paradigm shift in anthropology but deny that any shift has happened. The other group

think that a shift has already happened. Strathern agrees with the first group that there has

been no paradigm shift (1987: 281), but she rejects an assumption of theirs, an assumption

common to both groups: that it is possible for feminist research to bring about a paradigm

shift in anthropology. My aim here is to evaluate her arguments for the conclusion that this is

impossible. Before evaluating her arguments, I define some key concepts and present two

T.R.Edward

2

fictional cases of feminist research bringing about a paradigm shift in anthropology. I then

show that her arguments do not establish the impossibility of these cases.

2. Definitions

To evaluate Strathern’s arguments, it will be useful to first clarify some of the

concepts involved in formulating the possibility which she denies: the concept of social

anthropology, the concept of feminist research, the concept of a paradigm, and the concept of

bringing about a paradigm shift. The purpose of this section is to provide these clarifications.

I will talk simply of anthropology, but will be referring throughout to social

anthropology. The term ‘social anthropology’ is sometimes used to refer to a British tradition

of anthropological work, but it will be used here in a broader sense. In this broader sense,

anthropology is a discipline which aims to study cultural diversity.

Let us turn now to feminist research. The obvious starting point for defining feminist

research is to say that it is research which has, as either its sole aim or one of its aims, the aim

of helping to counter the oppression of women, where women are thought of as including all

female human beings. This definition raises other issues about how we are to understand the

reference to women. Are they to be conceived of on the basis of chromosomes, so that what it

is to be a female is to have certain chromosomes, or else on the basis of bodily organs? Or are

they to be conceived of in some other way altogether, perhaps in terms of their psychological

traits or how they are classified within a culture? I shall rely on this definition of feminist

research while passing over these questions. The material below can survive different

elaborations of the definition and it is not crucial to elaborate on it here. Strathern herself

does not spell out what she has in mind by feminist research, but this definition appears to

capture the understanding she is relying on in her paper.

T.R.Edward

3

One can, in contrast, find statements of hers which specify what a paradigm is (1987:

281). There is a problem, however. At different points in her paper, she uses the term

‘paradigm’ in different senses. For now, we can take a paradigm to be a set of

presuppositions of some or all research work within a discipline, but presuppositions which

are not essential to the discipline itself. There could be research work within the discipline

which does not have these presuppositions. These presuppositions, we can say, are contingent

to the discipline. (The requirement that they must be contingent will play an important role in

one of Strathern’s arguments.) They are typically of a highly general character, but we can

allow for exceptions to this description. To illustrate this notion of a paradigm, perhaps there

was once research work in anthropology which involved the following presuppositions: (i)

there are distinct societies; (ii) for each society, there is a set of beliefs about the nature of the

world which is the worldview of that society; (iii) for each society, there is a set of beliefs

about how one should live which is the ethos of that society. This set of presuppositions is a

paradigm.

Early on in her paper, Strathern writes in a way that suggests she is using the term

‘paradigm’ in this sense:

The idea that paradigms can be shifted suggests two things at once. The

underlying assumptions that constitute disciplinary bias in its unreformed state

are exposed; at the same time, displacing these with a conscious theoretical

framework challenges existing theoretical frameworks. Fundamental premises

are thus open to assault. (1987: 277)

What I have characterized as presuppositions, typically of a highly general character,

Strathern characterizes as underlying assumptions and fundamental premises.

Anthropologists tend to speak of assumptions more often than presuppositions. There are

subtle differences between what is conveyed by these ways of speaking but it is safe for us to

T.R.Edward

4

overlook them. The reason why the idea of paradigms being shifted implies an attack on

certain presuppositions is because a paradigm, in this context, is a set of presuppositions.

Strathern believes that feminist research has not brought about a paradigm shift in

anthropology, but she disagrees with some other feminist academics who share this belief

over why the shift has not occurred. They locate the obstacle in the emotions of

anthropologists. Anthropologists feel discomfort over abandoning the paradigm under attack

and that is why there has been no paradigm shift. Strathern captures the view of this group as

follows:

The idea of overturning paradigms is a popular metaphor for the perceived

challenge and counter-challenge in the relationship between feminist

scholarship and established disciplines. It is the received radical view that

people will defend their present paradigms because it is too uncomfortable or

threatening to give up what one has. (1987: 282)

There would be little point in appealing to anthropologists’ feelings of discomfort unless one

thinks that feminist research provides anthropologists with a good reason to abandon an

anthropological paradigm. If not, one could just say that the explanation for why

anthropologists have not given up their paradigm is that they lack a good reason to. These

feminists therefore suggest a certain account of what would have happened had

anthropologists’ feelings of discomfort not intervened. On this account, feminist research has

provided anthropologists with a good reason to abandon a paradigm of anthropology. It has

also provided anthropologists with a good reason to take up a replacement paradigm which it

has constructed. If discomfort had not intervened, what would have happened is that

anthropologists would have abandoned their paradigm and taken up this replacement, hence

there would have been a paradigm shift.

T.R.Edward

5

We can construct a local variation on this account, where feminist research does not

challenge a paradigm of all anthropology, only a paradigm of some anthropology. It provides

a good reason to those anthropologists who operate with this paradigm to abandon it in

favour of a replacement that it has constructed. If discomfort had not intervened, a local

paradigm shift would have occurred. In this paper, I will only be concerned with the

possibility of feminist research bringing about a paradigm shift in anthropology in one of

these two ways. In the introduction to this paper, I represented Strathern as denying that

feminist research can bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology. More precisely, her

denial is that it can bring about a paradigm shift in one of these ways, regardless of the

emotional disposition of anthropologists. That is to say, even if anthropologists are not made

uncomfortable by the thought of abandoning certain presuppositions of theirs, neither the

supposed possibility sketched in the previous paragraph nor its local variation is a genuine

possibility in her eyes.

3. Two Fictional Cases

I am not aware of any actual cases of feminist research bringing about a paradigm

shift in anthropology, but it seems that we can easily imagine this occurring. If Strathern’s

arguments are successful, then they will reveal what we imagine to be impossible or to in fact

be something else, that is, something other than feminist research bringing about a paradigm

shift in anthropology. In this section, I present two fictional cases, in order to later consider

whether Strathern’s arguments achieve this goal.

The first case involves feminist research which inquires into the issue of why some

people who accept that certain gender norms are oppressive continue to abide by those norms,

while others do not (Vasterling 2010: 176-177). An investigation into this issue, let us

imagine, leads to a novel theory of how individuals relate to social norms and this theory

T.R.Edward

6

clashes with certain presuppositions of some anthropology. Furthermore, the theory has a

much stronger justification than these presuppositions, meaning that there is good reason for

anthropologists to stop operating with these presuppositions and to operate with the theory

instead. Feminist researchers make this point to anthropologists, leading to a paradigm shift.

The second fictional case involves feminist research inquiring into the nature of our

gender concepts. Oppression of women typically involves agents acting in a way that is

reliant on gender concepts, so it may well be deemed important to understand these concepts.

Investigation into our gender concepts, let us imagine, results in an understanding of these

concepts which challenges various theories of concepts in general and leads those

investigating to a novel theory of the nature of concepts. This theory has a much stronger

justification than a rival one which is presupposed by much anthropology. Feminist

researchers point this out to anthropologists, thereby bringing about a paradigm shift in

anthropology.

The term ‘paradigm’ is associated with Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions. At some points in that text, Kuhn writes as if those with a novel paradigm in a

natural science cannot provide compelling reasons to abandon the old paradigm and accept

the new one (Kuhn 1996: 94). The presuppositions that constitute a natural scientific

paradigm are not the kind of things that can be provided with compelling reasons, he suggests.

On the basis of this suggestion, Kuhn has sometimes been thought of as depicting major

theoretical changes in science as non-rational (see Bird 2011). If we export this suggestion to

the debate that Strathern is participating in, a worry arises about whether cases of the kind

that I have presented could actually occur. These cases depend on feminist research providing

a compelling reason to anthropologists to abandon a paradigm, that is to say, a reason which

is such that it ought to lead anthropologists to abandon that paradigm. But the worry is that

there cannot be compelling reasons in favour of or against the presuppositions that constitute

T.R.Edward

7

a paradigm. Strathern does not appeal to this worry. Her arguments are difficult to anticipate

beforehand. I turn now to these arguments.

4. The No-Isomorphism Argument

Strathern’s first argument appears very early on in her paper. She attempts to identify

a commitment of those who think that feminist research can produce a paradigm shift in a

traditional discipline, even if it has so far failed to:

Much of the literature on the failure of feminist scholarship to change

disciplines assumes the isomorphism of feminist studies and traditional

disciplines, for it is often couched in terms of the immense task of paradigm

shift. (1987: 277)

The commitment is to feminist research and traditional disciplines being isomorphic. I will

consider what isomorphic means after reconstructing Strathern’s argument. We can leave this

issue for now and observe that she denies that there is this isomorphism:

The fact that feminist scholarship works across disciplines means it cannot be

parallel with them, and this is awkward in relation to the idea that feminist

insights might modify work in any single discipline, for instance,

anthropology. For its impact to be registered on mainstream theorizing,

feminist scholarship would have to be construed as an isomorphic sister

“discipline” from which ideas and concepts could be borrowed. (1987: 276-

277)

Strathern’s thinking in these two quotations can be summarised as follows. Those who

believe that there is a possibility of feminist research bringing about paradigm shifts in

traditional disciplines are committed to a view of feminist research and traditional disciplines

as isomorphic, but they are not isomorphic.

T.R.Edward

8

From this summary, we can reconstruct an argument against the possibility of

feminist research bringing about a paradigm shift in anthropology:

(1) Feminist research can only bring about a paradigm shift in a traditional discipline if

feminist research and that discipline are isomorphic.

(2) Anthropology is a traditional discipline.

(3) Feminist research and anthropology are not isomorphic.

From (1) and (2):

(4) Feminist research can only bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology if feminist

research and anthropology are isomorphic.

From (3) and (4):

(5) Feminist research cannot bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology.

Note that premise (1) is intended to express a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

That is to say, even if feminist research and a traditional discipline are isomorphic, this in

itself may not be sufficient for it to be able to bring about a paradigm shift in that discipline.

There may be other obstacles.

In order to evaluate Strathern’s argument, it is important to have some grasp of what it

means to say that one discipline and another are isomorphic. Strathern does not clarify this

notion, but I shall offer an interpretation based on suggestive material within her paper. (The

interpretation will leave the notion looking vague, but a more precise consideration against

feminist research being able to bring about a paradigm shift will emerge by the end of this

section.) Two disciplines are isomorphic if they do not largely overlap in terms of what is

studied but members of both disciplines have a similar way of relating to their respective

objects of study. A way of relating to an object of study, in this context, is a way of

researching it that is guided by certain values. A person who takes notes on the structures of

living things would not necessarily be a biologist for Strathern, despite studying living things

T.R.Edward

9

and even if some of these things have never been studied before. To be a biologist, on a

Kuhn-inspired understanding which I think she accepts (1987: 285), one must evaluate the

information in terms of its value for solving problems which are currently recognized as

theoretical problems for biology or in terms of whether it raises a new theoretical problem for

the community of biologists. A physicist must also relate to information in terms of its

theoretical problem-solving or problem-raising value, but in this case for physics, and so

physics is an isomorphic discipline to biology.

Strathern does not say whether she takes feminist research to be something other than

a discipline or whether she takes it to be a discipline, just not a discipline which is isomorphic

to anthropology. She perceives a lack of isomorphism because feminist research draws upon

different traditional disciplines to achieve its aim and, a point which she emphasizes

(Strathern 1987: 277), because it involves some other way of relating. Feminist research aims

to help counter the oppression of women. Researchers evaluate material studied in terms of

its value for this aim. The principal aim of anthropology, meanwhile, is knowledge. On the

basis of the definition which I earlier introduced, it aims for knowledge of cultural diversity.

Presumably, on other definitions the idea of anthropology aiming for knowledge will be

preserved. Anthropologists relate to what they study by judging its value for extending the

discipline’s knowledge.

Even if feminist research and anthropology are not isomorphic, this does not present

any obvious problem for the possibility of the former bringing about a paradigm shift in the

latter. If one thinks back to the fictional cases introduced in the previous section, the

possibility of these cases does not appear to be jeopardised by accepting non-isomorphism.

Consequently, premise (1) seems both false and bewildering. The question we are left with is

why Strathern believes that being isomorphic is a necessary condition for one discipline, or

body of research, being able to provide another with a paradigm. I will not directly answer

T.R.Edward

10

this question, but will consider why Strathern might have thought that the specific non-

isomorphism of feminist research and anthropology means that feminist research cannot

provide anthropology with a paradigm. Consideration of this issue will reveal her argument to

be more defensible than it seems at first blush.

Strathern says that feminist research cuts across traditional disciplines, of which

anthropology is one. Her thought then might be that any paradigm developed within feminist

research is already in anthropology, and so cannot be said to enter anthropology from beyond.

But this is not necessarily true. The feminist paradigm might not have been developed by

involving any anthropology. Furthermore, even if it is already within anthropology, it may be

that non-feminist anthropologists are still working with a set of presuppositions which clashes

with this paradigm, presuppositions which are dubious in light of the findings of feminist

research. And so we can envisage a paradigm shift occurring in which the rest of

anthropology takes up this paradigm developed by feminist research and already within

anthropology. This too is feminist research bringing about a paradigm shift in anthropology.

An alternative interpretation of her thinking focuses on the claim that feminist

research and anthropology involve different relationships to the material studied. If feminist

research involves evaluating material in terms of its value for countering the oppression of

women, then it can only present a set of presuppositions as worth adopting because of their

value for this goal. However, this goal is not the goal of anthropology, so feminist research

cannot present an evaluation of these presuppositions which speaks to anthropological

concerns. This strikes me as the most defensible construal of Strathern’s thinking, in terms of

how difficult it is to object to. But it relies on an overly restrictive conception of the

evaluations that feminist research can engage in. In seeking to counter the oppression of

women, one might also seek knowledge of certain things, for instance how people relate to

gender norms and the nature of gender concepts. That might put feminist research in a

T.R.Edward

11

position to judge that certain presuppositions of anthropology are inadequate representations

of important phenomena. A justified judgement of this kind is going to constitute a reason to

abandon those presuppositions, unless anthropologists can make a special case for preserving

them when studying cultural diversity, despite their distorting effect. Thus I think we have to

say that the non-isomorphism argument does not work. The possibility of feminist research

bringing about a paradigm shift in anthropology remains.

5. The No-Paradigms Argument

The second argument that Strathern makes involves denying that anthropology has

paradigms. Kuhn introduced the concept of a paradigm to discuss the development of the

natural sciences. Strathern contrasts these sciences with the social sciences by saying that in a

social science there are a number of different theoretical frameworks which are in

competition with one another, unlike in natural science. On the basis of this contrast, she

denies that anthropology has paradigms:

So why the resistance? … The answer cannot lie in “paradigms,” first, because

the different theoretical positions occupied in the social sciences are not

analogous to the paradigms of Kuhnian science. They are based on overt

conflict between competitive conceptual frameworks which cannot be reduced

to single positions… (1987: 286)

In this quotation, Strathern writes as if the only candidates for being paradigms in a social

science are its explicit theoretical frameworks, but these are not paradigms. We will later see

that she moderates her position, but I shall begin by discussing this argument.

We can reconstruct Strathern’s argument once again as three premises and two inferences

from these premises:

T.R.Edward

12

(1) Feminist research can only bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology if there is at

least one paradigm in anthropology.

(2) If the theoretical frameworks which anthropologists refer to are not paradigms, there

are no paradigms in anthropology.

(3) The theoretical frameworks which anthropologists refer to are not paradigms.

From (2) and (3):

(4) There are no paradigms in anthropology.

From (1) and (4):

(5) Feminist research cannot bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology.

I have not explained Strathern’s grounds for endorsing (3). The section of her paper in which

the argument appears is difficult to follow, and open to more than one interpretation. I shall

focus on the clearest interpretation.

At a certain point in her paper, Strathern raises an objection to operating with our

understanding of a paradigm as a set of contingent presuppositions, typically of a highly

general character. She writes:

…one might get away with a commonsense understanding of paradigms as

“basic conceptual frameworks and orienting assumptions of a body of

knowledge.” Yet one significant feature of the Kuhnian paradigm is that the

scientists he studied become aware of paradigm shift only after the fact. (1987:

281)

What this quotation suggests is that, according to Strathern, we should add to our

understanding that the presuppositions that constitute a paradigm are not objects of awareness

for those operating with that paradigm. In other words, if a researcher is aware of certain

presuppositions of their work, then it does not count as a paradigm of theirs. With this

modified conception of what a paradigm is, we can realize why she discounts the theoretical

T.R.Edward

13

frameworks that anthropologists refer to – Marxist frameworks, psychoanalytic frameworks,

cognitive anthropology frameworks and so on – as paradigms. Anthropologists who are

committed to one of these frameworks advertise that fact and comment on how it differs from

other frameworks which it is in competition with. Their awareness of their framework

discounts it from being a paradigm. On the interpretation I shall work with, this is Strathern’s

justification for (3).

One objection to this justification is that the lack-of-awareness condition that she

recommends is not worth incorporating. If feminist research were to provide a compelling

reason to abandon a set of contingent presuppositions running through some or all

anthropology, in favour of a framework that it has constructed, and if anthropologists act on

that reason, it is pedantic to deny that a paradigm shift has occurred, should it turn out that

anthropologists were already aware of these presuppositions. They might have been aware of

the presuppositions while regarding them as uncontroversial, either believing that there are no

coherent alternatives to them or believing that the alternatives are implausible. In the context

of the debate Strathern is involved in, the lack-of-awareness condition is not important.

Even if we grant this condition and so concede that the theoretical frameworks that

anthropologists refer to are not paradigms, there are other candidates for paradigms in

anthropology. If we try to lay out the commitments of the recognized theoretical frameworks

within anthropology, further analysis might reveal certain assumptions common to all of the

different frameworks yet contingent to the discipline as a whole. Would not sets of these

assumptions constitute paradigms? They are presuppositions of much familiar anthropology

but there could be anthropology without these presuppositions. Strathern is aware of this

objection. She writes:

It may be objected that such positions are not, then, really of paradigmatic

status, and we should look for deeper paradigms. Yet to do so would be easier

T.R.Edward

14

from within anthropology: for instance, it is encounters with alien social and

cultural systems that allow one to scrutinize the subject/object dichotomy or

commodity notions that inform Western concepts of personhood and identity.

(1987: 286)

In the first quotation of this section, Strathern sounds as if she is denying that there are

paradigms in anthropology, hence the no-paradigms argument. In this second quotation, she

moderates her position by being open to the possibility of deeper paradigms: presuppositions

common to the different theoretical frameworks yet contingent to the discipline. Nevertheless,

she thinks that it would be difficult for feminist research to challenge any such paradigms and

easier for a challenge to come from within anthropology.

Strathern does not spell out why she thinks in this way, but I believe that her thinking

in expanded form is as follows. If feminist research is to challenge some of these deeper

presuppositions, it will need to be aware of them. That awareness is difficult to achieve. It

will usually depend on an encounter with a way of representing the world which involves

alternative presuppositions. But that is much easier to achieve from within anthropology.

Feminist research is unlikely to be in a position to achieve an awareness of the deeper

contingent presuppositions of anthropology in order to attack them.

There are three objections to this line of thought. The first objection is that feminist

researchers may end up abandoning deeper presuppositions common to both them and

anthropology when trying to understand certain phenomena, without necessarily studying

people with alternative presuppositions. Returning to my two fictional cases, the effort to

understand how people relate to gender norms and the effort to understand gender concepts

may result in deeper presuppositions being abandoned. Natural scientists sometimes end up

departing significantly from folk models of the world, without studying others with a

different model. Whatever differences there are between natural science and feminist inquiry

T.R.Edward

15

outside natural science, I do not see why feminist inquiry of any kind might not also lead to

significant departures.

The second objection is that Strathern’s thinking overlooks other disciplines which

sometimes involve the study of people with hitherto unfamiliar worldviews. One such

discipline is psychology. I have in mind specifically child psychology. Child psychologists do

not think that the child begins as a blank slate in terms of its worldview and that the culture

that it is in simply writes its worldview onto the blank slate. Some child psychologists think

that a child has to go through a series of theoretical revolutions, a series of personal paradigm

shifts, before arriving at presuppositions about the world shared by the adults around them

(Carey 1988). These psychologists study the unfamiliar worldviews of children, which

suggests the possibility of becoming aware of deeper anthropological presuppositions through

this study.

The third objection is that Strathern’s thinking overlooks that, if it is easier to become

aware of deeper anthropological presuppositions through anthropology itself, feminist

research might use anthropology to achieve this awareness. It could, for example, rely on

feminist reinterpretations of anthropological works. This is a way in which anthropology

might play a role in enabling feminist awareness of deeper anthropological presuppositions,

in order for these presuppositions to be attacked. Indeed, sometimes interpretations of

anthropological research by commentators are more revolutionary in orientation than

anything claimed by the original researcher (e.g., Bloor 1991: 139).

Whatever the objections to the line of thought from Strathern that I have been

considering, this line is not a contribution to the claim that it is impossible for feminist

research to bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology. Its conclusion is that it is difficult

for feminist research to bring about such a shift, but difficult things are sometimes achieved.

The next section of this paper resumes the focus on impossibility.

T.R.Edward

16

6. The No-Contingency Argument

In order for feminist research to bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology, it needs

to provide anthropologists with a good reason to abandon a contingent presupposition of

some or all anthropology. Towards the end of her paper, Strathern imagines a dialogue

between a type of anthropologist, a literary anthropologist, and a type of feminist, a radical

feminist. Neither party manages to target contingent presuppositions of the other. The

anthropologist criticizes an essential presupposition of feminist research and the feminist

criticizes an essential presupposition of anthropological research.

In this paper, I will only present the radical feminist’s criticism of the literary

anthropologist. This kind of anthropologist accepts the following claims: (i) it is an ideal of

anthropology that the perspective of those studied by anthropological research is revealed in

the final text; (ii) this ideal can only be realized if the text is multiply-authored, rather than

purely the authorship of the anthropologist; (iii) literary experimentation with the genre of

ethnography is essential for efforts to achieve this ideal. Hence this anthropologist engages in

literary experimentation. The radical feminist points out that, whatever experiments are made,

ultimately the anthropologist organizes his text guided by the interests of his discipline, not

the interests of those studied. His ideal of revealing the perspective of those studied cannot

therefore be realized:

The anthropological ideal is a delusion, overlooking the crucial dimension of

different social interests… They have no interests in common to be served by

this purportedly common product. (1987: 290)

However, this ideal is essential to anthropology, so the radical feminist, by asserting that

different interests will block any attempt to realize the ideal, fails to undermine a contingent

presupposition of anthropology. The only way in which the literary anthropologist could

T.R.Edward

17

change so as to incorporate the radical feminist’s point would be to give up on anthropology

altogether. (Strathern does not explain why different interests would prevent the realization of

the anthropological ideal. I do not think this is necessarily an obstacle. As most people who

have ever told a lie know, there are times when others with significantly different interests are

able to detect and articulate what one actually believes.)

Strathern thinks that any other critical dialogue between feminist research and

anthropology will also be a case where no contingent presuppositions are undermined. We

will come to why she thinks this later. At this stage, we are in a position to reconstruct her

argument:

(1) Feminist research can only bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology if feminist

research can provide a good reason for anthropologists to abandon a contingent

presupposition of theirs.

(2) Feminist research cannot provide such a reason. (If it tries to, it ends up criticizing

essential presuppositions.)

Therefore:

(3) Feminist research cannot bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology.

In order to properly grasp this argument, we need to understand Strathern’s grounds for (2).

This involves her reason for thinking that any critical dialogue between a feminist researcher

and an anthropologist will follow the pattern of the dialogue she presents between the radical

feminist and the literary anthropologist.

Strathern locates the obstacle to contingent criticism in different conceptions of the

Other. She writes:

Although I dwelt on particular approaches, the construals of the Other briefly

described here can be generalized to feminism and anthropology overall.

These constructions are fundamental. When brought out into the open and

T.R.Edward

18

compared, their proponents cannot possibly challenge each other, for the one

is no substitute for the other. (1987: 291)

We can say that the Other in relation to a project is a person or group that is subject to a

significant amount of attention by those engaging in the project, as part of pursuing the

project, and is represented as significantly different to those engaging in the project, in beliefs

or experiences or behaviours. On this definition, not all research projects have an Other, but

some do. Strathern depicts anthropology and feminism as having incompatible conceptions of

the Other. For feminist research, the Other is patriarchal institutions and men (Strathern 1987,

288). It depends on a conception according to which those engaged in feminist projects

should not collaborate with the Other, because the Other is a source of oppression. For

anthropological research, the Other is the object of study (Strathern 1987, 289). It depends on

a conception according to which the Other has a perspective that is valuable to know and

according to which the Other can be and must be collaborated with, for this is necessary to

develop knowledge of the Other’s perspective. The incompatibility comes from the fact that a

feminist anthropologist in the field will receive conflicting prescriptions from their feminist

and their anthropological commitments. Their feminist commitments lead to the conclusion

that they must not collaborate with men, while their anthropological commitments entail the

necessity of collaboration.

Strathern’s representation of feminist research is extreme and dubious. From the

definition of feminist research that we are working with, according to which it aims to help

counter the oppression of women, it seems that feminist research only requires no

collaboration with men in situations where any collaboration is a hindrance, all things

considered, to countering the oppression of women. To arrive at Strathern’s view, that

feminist research requires no collaboration with its Other, one needs to argue that every

situation is of this kind. Strathern does not provide any such argument and I cannot see any

T.R.Edward

19

plausible argument available. The picture of incompatibility that she mentions is inadequately

justified and, most likely, unjustifiable. Penelope Harvey, in a Strathern-inspired passage,

writes that ‘The feminist self exists through… an antagonistic separation from the male Other’

(1998: 74). But I think that this self can just as well exist while thinking, ‘Sometimes it is

good to work together, sometimes not.’ What a feminist anthropologist needs to consider is

whether collaborating with men as part of anthropological research can help counter the

oppression of women, a question that should surely be approached on a case by case basis.

Even if there were the incompatibility that Strathern posits, it would not prevent

feminist research from bringing about a paradigm shift in anthropology. As we observed in

part 4, the feminist research that gives rise to material justifying a paradigm shift does not

have to involve anthropology. Thus significant concessions can be made to Strathern’s

attempt to ground (2) while still finding that premise objectionable.

7. The Replacement Picture

Strathern does more than just deny the possibility of feminist research bringing about

a paradigm shift in anthropology. She also offers a memorable replacement picture of how

they relate to one another. Before presenting this picture, it will be useful to briefly consider

an issue that was passed over in the previous section. Strathern depicts feminist research and

anthropology as each unable to provide good reasons to abandon contingent presuppositions

of the other. But can they instead provide good reasons to abandon essential presuppositions

and therefore cease pursuing one of these activities? Strathern thinks that they cannot. When

the radical feminist criticizes the literary anthropologist’s ideal, he responds like so:

Anthropological practice would cease if it could not implement in some way

or another a working ethic of humanism. (1987: 290)

T.R.Edward

20

Strathern’s thinking is that it is reasonable for the literary anthropologist to set aside the

criticism of the radical feminist, even if it is indeed true that he can never capture the

perspective of those studied. It is reasonable for the radical feminist in turn to set aside the

criticism of the literary anthropologist. These responses need elaboration, otherwise we

cannot see why they are reasonable. I will set aside the task of elaborating them myself in

order to now sketch Strathern’s replacement picture.

Anthropology and feminist research cannot produce relevant criticism of one another,

but they can mock each other (1987: 289-290). There are two kinds of mockery that Strathern

draws attention to, although they are not distinguished in the original text. One kind involves

criticism which targets presuppositions that are essential to the other kind of research.

Feminist research can criticize presuppositions that are essential to anthropology and vice

versa. This kind of criticism leaves those criticized feeling vulnerable, since the

presuppositions targeted are far from self-evident, yet the nature of their project makes it

reasonable for them to set aside the criticism. When the criticism is made in the knowledge

that it can reasonably be set aside, this is mere mockery. It is only done to expose the

vulnerable points of another. The other kind of mockery involves so nearly achieving what

those criticized aim to achieve. Thus Strathern suggests that the radical feminist can say,

‘Look what I can do!’ to an envious literary anthropologist:

But feminists come close to displaying an alternative route to what

anthropologists hope to achieve in collaborative enterprises. Feminists can

claim substantial interests in common with the people they study. They may

be speaking woman to woman, or else have a common ground in

understanding systems of domination. (1987: 290)

T.R.Edward

21

Strathern’s literary anthropologist, in turn, mocks the radical feminist with what he can do.

The picture of mutual mockery, yet no relevant criticism, is a memorable one, but Strathern’s

arguments do not justify it.

We can envisage ways in which feminist research might bring about a paradigm shift

in anthropology. If we come to Strathern’s text with such ways in mind, her arguments are

not sufficient to show that a paradigm shift could not occur in those ways. It may be said that

we should consider the arguments while working with a narrower sense of what a paradigm is,

which is more faithful to Kuhn’s original thinking. But a narrower sense does not seem

important in this context. It is enough that the broader possibility remains: that feminist

research might provide anthropologists with good reasons for abandoning some general

presuppositions of anthropological work in favour of the alternatives it has uncovered. An

attempt to deny that feminist research can bring about a paradigm shift in anthropology

diminishes greatly in significance if it does not rule out this possibility.

References

Bird, A. 2011. Thomas Kuhn. In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Winter 2011 Edition.

Bloor, D. 1991 (2nd

ed.). Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Carey, S. 1988. Conceptual differences between children and adults. Mind and Language 3:

167-181.

Douglas, M. 1989. A Gentle Deconstruction. London Review of Books 11: 17-18.

Haraway, D. 1994. Review of M. Strathern, Reproducing the Future: Essays on

Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. American Anthropologist 96:

212-213.

T.R.Edward

22

Harvey, P. 1998. Feminism and Anthropology. In S. Jackson and J. Jones (eds.),

Contemporary Feminist Theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Kuhn, T. 1996 (3rd

edition). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Strathern, M. 1987. An Awkward Relationship: the Case of Feminism and Anthropology.

Signs 12: 276-292.

Vasterling, V. 2010. The Psyche and the Social – Judith Butler’s Politicizing of

Psychoanalytic Theory. In J. de Vleminck (ed.), Sexuality and Psychoanalysis: Philosophical

Criticisms. Leuven: Leuven University Press.